|
|
.
|
|
.
|
.
|
|
|
●
Gasoline,
●
Kerosene,
●
Fuel Oils
●
Gas Condensates,
●
UST Removals, Remediation,
●
Groundwater Monitoring,
● Benzene + Other Light-Refined
Petroleum Contaminants
|
|
Sitelab’s GRO calibration kit CAL-025 is used to measure BTEX and
other volatile petroleum hydrocarbons in the C6 to C10 range.
This test matches well to U.S. EPA and other regulatory
methods for GRO, VPH, BTEX or VOCs using Gas Chromatography
instrumentation.
|
|
CLICK IMAGES BELOW TO DOWNLOAD
|
|
|
|
UVF-TRILOGY Performance
This performance study compares UVF-TRILOGY to the UVF-3100
analyzer. Both instruments are fitted with similar optical
filters and produce accurate results over a wide range of
contaminants. Samples
only take a few minutes to extract in solvent and analyze.
Minimum detection limit is 0.5 ppm.
The
UVF-TRILOGY was designed to replicate and replace Sitelab's UVF-3100
models. The case studies listed below highlight the accuracy
using this instrument for past projects.
|
|
|
|
|
GRO & VPH
Accuracy at UST
Site
Evaluation study performed by customer testing soil samples at a
former gas station in Massachusetts. They wanted to know how Sitelab's
GRO test compares to two different
laboratory methods, GRO and VPH, commonly used in the
United States and
elseware. Sitelab correlated well to both methods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performance
Testing GRO in Water
Sitelab's
UVF-3100 performed well testing blind, NELAC certified, spiked water samples
provided by Environmental Resource Associates (Arvada, CO). Results
were compared to the GRO in water concentrations reported by 83
participating laboratories using a variety of gas chromatography methods.
»SEE
OIL IN WATER PERFORMANCE STUDY
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. EPA GRO in Soil Performance
As part of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's TPH in Soil Evaluation Study, a group of soils were
spiked in triplicate with weathered gasoline having variable
concentrations. Weathered gasoline contains BTEX and
other volatile petroleum hydrocarbons, which make up the GRO
fraction found in total petroleum hydrocarbons.
Results were compared to a certified laboratory who
performed SW-846 Method 8015B.
EPA evaluated Sitelab's UVF-3100A and six other
manufacturers during the program.
Soils from Kelly Air Force Base
in San Antonio, Texas, were analyzed for GRO as part of the
study.
Samples were collected from an active underground
storage tank (UST) farm that serves as the government vehicle
refueling station at the base. Soils tested consisted
of sandy clays with silty sand and gravel.
EPA reported that for GRO measurement bias "seven of the
eight UVF-3100A results were within 50 percent of the
reference method result," page 66.
SOURCE: EPA/600/R-01/080 |
|
»Download
U.S. EPA Report
|
|
|
|
Still using a
PID to Screen Soils?
"Jar
Headspace" using photo ionization detectors (PIDs) is common practice
for field screening soils contaminated with petroleum
hydrocarbons. PIDs detect air vapors in soil for volatile
organic compounds. Despite their popularity, however, PIDs
can often give false readings. Data shown here
compares GRO to PID concentrations testing soils contaminated by
weathered gasoline. Grab samples were collected from borings in 1 to 2 foot intervals and then screened using a PID and UVF to
delineate the vertical subsurface extent of contamination.Not surprisingly, results did not correlate
very well. |
|
|
|
|
